After US Resumes Aid, Pakistan Starts Downplaying Drone Strikes

On October 18, the Pakistani government delivered testimony to the UN rapporteur on human rights confirming at least 400 civilians slain in US drone strikes, along with over 200 other “probable non-combatants” and hundreds more simply unidentified.

The next day, the Obama Administration released $1.6 billion in aid to the Pakistani government, and now Pakistan’s Defense Ministry has issued a new public report on the drones in total contradiction on their own government’s findings, putting the overall death toll at 67, and declaring everyone else an “Islamist militant.”

Pakistan’s defense ministry and spy agencies have often downplayed civilian death tolls in US operations, and not-coincidentally those two are the largest recipients by far of US cash. The timing of the defense ministry’s latest report, and the absurdity of its conclusions, is a particularly stark example, however.

The UN is already demanding “clarification” related to the new statement, but since Pakistan’s military seems to be counting everyone who isn’t an infant or an elderly woman as a “Islamist militant” it doesn’t seem like clarity is part of the equation.

Both estimates, and the Obama Administration’s own “secret” estimate are all incomplete, since the vast, vast majority of drone strike victims are never identified. Of over 2,200 people killed since 2008, only a few dozen were ever conclusively identified as “terrorists,” and the rest will live in the annals of history as “suspects,” whose guilt is presumed by virtue of their getting hit with a missile.

Author: Jason Ditz

Yesterday in a comments section in Washington Times, I asked a guy, who said "Yawn" in reference to a Glaser report on US drone strike civilian victims, if he had a limit for how many civilians he thought it was okay to kill in the process of executing a suspect.

He said he has no limit. He did not mention anything about the problem with executing a suspect. I think people in the US now think "suspect" and "militant" are synonyms.

I next asked him if he would sacrifice his own family members so the US could execute a suspect, and if he has joined the armed forces himself. This time, instead of answering directly, he went off on a long rant about how Arab militants are bad, and how it is worth any price to kill them.

charlie

So many who say they support this have never worn a uniform, nor ever seen combat. They are basically bullies and cowards. Just my 2 cents, from a former US Marine, Vietnam war vet.

jtt

The “Lack” of money is the root of all evil. So the president of Pakistan visit to the US was to beg and plead to Obama for more “Blood Money” not about the illegal drone killings of his countrymen.?

curmudgeonvt

So, the problem is that the president of Pakistan asked for money to change some numbers or that the USG gave him $1.6 billion of US taxpayer treasure? What kind and how many good things could $1.6 billion have done here in this country to help it's own citizens? And the Congress wonders (they say) why the government runs at a deficit all the time.

masmanz

It is not blood money as it does not go to the victims. It lines the pocket of those who write such reports.

JDonald

When the day of reckoning comes, there will be hell to pay for the killing of any person, especially those that are assumed to be evil. America still believes somewhat in the Judeo-Christian ethic about the badness of killing (murder) but the believing public don't have a say. Our foreign policy is implemented by those that don't believe a damn.